Rahgoshay v. Pugh CA4/3

── Rahgoshay v. Pugh CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 Rahgoshay v. Pugh CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MOHAMMAD RAHGOSHAY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, G063534 v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018- 00982971) SAHAR S. PUGH et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nick A. Dourbetas, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Craig J. Beauchamp and Craig J. Beauchamp for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Milstein Jackson Fairchild & Wade, Mark A. Milstein and Mayo L. Makarczyk for Defendants and Respondents. * * *  Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are Mohammad Rahgoshay and MRMK, LLC (MRMK). Rahgoshay and nonparty Fariborz Wosoughkia (Kia)1 were business partners who made three investments together. Two of these were made through MRMK, an entity they formed to pursue their investments. Defendant Sahar S. Pugh is an attorney employed by defendant Milstein Jackson Fairchild & Wade LLP (Milstein; collectively defendants). Pugh provided some assistance to Rahgoshay, Kia, and MRMK in making these investments, but the parties dispute the extent of her involvement. Plaintiffs claim Pugh orally agreed to represent them, while defendants contend Pugh was doing Kia a personal favor. Plaintiffs lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in the three investments, and Rahgoshay and Kia’s relationship deteriorated. Plaintiffs then sued defendants for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of oral contract. Generally, plaintiffs alleged that Pugh had provided deficient legal services in connection with the three investments. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled in defendants’ favor. It largely relied on the testimony of Pugh and Kia, who both testified that defendants never provided legal representation to Kia or plaintiffs. The court subsequently entered judgment in defendants’ favor. Plaintiffs’ contentions on appeal are difficult to parse, and many of their arguments are not clearly articulated. They appear to primarily argue that the trial court erred in finding Kia’s and Pugh’s testimony to be credible. But plaintiffs misconstrue the legal standard for challenging credibility findings and have failed to show the testimony believed by the 1 Fariborz Wosoughkia is also known as Mike Kia, and he was referred to as Mr. Kia during trial. 2 court was “‘“unbelievable per se,”’ physically impossible or ‘“wholly unacceptable to reasonable minds.”’” (Oldham v. Kizer (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1046, 1065.) We also reject plaintiffs’ apparent contention that the trial court erred in finding no oral contract and no attorney-client or fiduciary relationship between defendants and plaintiffs. While plaintiffs have cited evidence from which the lower court could have ruled differently, they have not shown that its findings are unsupported by substantial evidence. The judgment is affirmed.2 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. THE INVESTM